And-Rew

if you've held a 1DX in your hand - and had a chance to push the ISO - you should known that this type of shot is more than achievable from that camera.

I'm not rubbishing the picture - it is an astonishing shot that conveys so much about New York after being hit by 'Sandy'. It is an indication of a photographer who knows the capabilities of his kit and was able to get and take the opportunity to prove it.

It is at times like this when that 1DX price tag seems a little bit on the bargain basement side - along with that 24-70 f2.8 L II.

Well done to Iwan Baan - he deserves all the plaudits he gets - and Canon will be happy with the increased sales this image will generate.

Standard

I'm not rubbishing the picture - it is an astonishing shot that conveys so much about New York after being hit by 'Sandy'. It is an indication of a photographer who knows the capabilities of his kit and was able to get and take the opportunity to prove it.

I know that many will argue that this image isn't anything great, that they themselves could have easily taken the shot given the same chance with the same equipment. It is the same argument that I have seen many others have made about the work of Peter Lik, Art Wolfe, Gregory Crewdson, Richard Avedon, Albert Watson, Sheila Metzner, and many others, that their work is subpar, mediocre. This same argument extends further to other creative areas such as painting, sculpture, etc. Comments/reactions to a work done by Jackson Pollack for example – "My four-year old kid could have done that" or "I could have easily done that" are often heard. Fact of the matter is that they did it, and not us. The fact that Iwan Baan, took advantage of the opportunity as well as the risks, to take the image is what mattered. Many people forget that more often than not, it's not about the final image but rather the story and/or process that was involved in taking the shot. They're often caught up in the technicality of the art and thus have forgotten that true photography is never about the final result but the events leading up to it. If this wan't the case, then no one would bother to consider the work of past photographers with subpar cameras yielding grainy, blurry images (Henri Cartier-Bresson, Brassai comes to mind) as who they really are...masters.

I'm not rubbishing the picture - it is an astonishing shot that conveys so much about New York after being hit by 'Sandy'. It is an indication of a photographer who knows the capabilities of his kit and was able to get and take the opportunity to prove it.

I know that many will argue that this image isn't anything great, that they themselves could have easily taken the shot given the same chance with the same equipment. It is the same argument that I have seen many others have made about the work of Peter Lik, Art Wolfe, Gregory Crewdson, Richard Avedon, Albert Watson, Sheila Metzner, and many others, that their work is subpar, mediocre. This same argument extends further to other creative areas such as painting, sculpture, etc. Comments/reactions to a work done by Jackson Pollack for example – "My four-year old kid could have done that" or "I could have easily done that" are often heard. Fact of the matter is that they did it, and not us. The fact that Iwan Baan, took advantage of the opportunity as well as the risks, to take the image is what mattered. Many people forget that more often than not, it's not about the final image but rather the story and/or process that was involved in taking the shot. They're often caught up in the technicality of the art and thus have forgotten that true photography is never about the final result but the events leading up to it. If this wan't the case, then no one would bother to consider the work of past photographers with subpar cameras yielding grainy, blurry images (Henri Cartier-Bresson, Brassai comes to mind) as who they really are...masters.

+1 I was about to comment on that when I saw your comment. The 24-70 2.8 II is not the end all be all lens. But I agree the picture is superb

Blah blah..Once in a lifetime shot.. and someone says he should use a prime? Same with the guy that posted in Dpreview "There's a lot of noise in that image, especially in the clouds. He should have used a Nikon D4"Any one know what kind of gear he took with him? and we also don't know which 24-70 he had. The shot we see is what he kept out of 2000-2500 shots. The guy deserves nothing but kudos.

Excellent shot.I think Poynter got it wrong, though: "Shooting in the dark, with a handheld camera, in a vibrating helicopter, 5,000 feet above land sounds like a photographer’s nightmare." Nightmare? That sounds like an awesome opportunity to me! The scene and devastation was probably a nightmare, but getting that perspective with a camera in hand is not.